14 August 2014 12:33 PM

A Discussion of the Death Penalty on BBC Radio 2

Here, beginning at One Hour and 8 minutes, is a discussion about the Death Penalty I took part in on the Jeremy Vine show (Paddy O’Connell in the chair) . There are some historical preliminaries explaining that the last executions in Britain took place almost exactly 50 years ago. The actual discussion begins at 1 hour 15 minutes

The discussion ended before I could say that I have never understood, as a longstanding member of of Amnesty International, why or how an organisation founded to aid peaceful prisoners of conscience could have ended up campaigning for lenient treatment of violent killers in free countries.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Paul P - I broadly agree, of course. I don't like to use the word euthanasia in this context though. Mercy killing. I don't advocate killing anyone, only having the right to end one's own life of misery, pain, suffering and indignity - for those who wish to exercise this right in the case of a terminal illness. It should be a free and entirely personal choice, I think. Without religious busybodies interfering!

The main problem in Germany is that of "Rechtssicherheit", ie. that doctors or helpers should not have to fear the risk of prosecution because of an unclear legal situation.

On abortion, no, it should never be used as a form of 'birth control'.

"An unborn human is a "person" in the OED definition of "an individual human being" even as an individual human cell."

The OED is just a book. The female egg and the male sperm come together at fertilisation as repositories of 'the plan', that is to say the DNA information necessary in combination to the manufacture of a human being. The egg, the single fertilised cell, can by no stretch even of the religious imagination be deemed a 'person'. It is just a bag of chemicals containing 'the plan'. Is the information comprising 'the plan' itself a 'person'? Well no, it isn't. That would be ridiculous. It's just genetic information coded in strings of nucleotide base pairs.

Work begins immediately on the manufacture of the human being, the DNA 'blueprints' now assembled in recombination and the RNA tools beginning the construction of structural proteins, and so forth. Even with a few million cells in place the construction can in no way be deemed a person. It is still ridiculous to think it so. Even when a recognisable human outline is visible it is still not a 'person'. To regard it so is to allow sentimentality to overwhelm rationality.

The issue of the onset of rightful personhood is controversial and in my view subjective, answering only to the calling of one's own natural conscience. Aborting a few million cells at the beginning of pregnancy is neither here nor there, but aborting a practically complete set at the point of birth seriously engages one's sense of what is right and what is wrong. Somewhere in between lies a median consensus of natural consciences, which the law has set at 24 weeks into pregnancy (other things being considered as well). Some are happy with this, some are not. Those not happy needn't of course comply for the law is proscriptive and not prescriptive. What business it is of those not happy and who have no wish to comply to dictate the business of those happy and who do wish to comply, I have no idea.

".....I'll find someone with understanding and compassion to help me on my final journey."

Perhaps this was a slight slip, but there will be no 'journey' involved. You'll hit the buffers and that'll be that. In the case of terminal illnesses with the patient in great discomfort it is common practice in hospitals to bring the buffers a bit closer so you'll hit them a bit sooner than the more usual end of the track, and this is one of those practices that is best not questioned for everyone's sake. You may recall that George V was eased on his way in order to make the morning editions in timely fashion.

Nevertheless one can appreciate the problems with accommodating this kind of thing in law. My view is that the law should stay 'as is' and the breaking of it in extraordinary circumstances not be prosecuted. That or the jury finding the defendant not guilty as a matter of course. This has happened occasionally with the judge directing the jury to so find. It's still risky but less risky than legislating for a possible Pandora's box of unforeseen consequences.

You can take the lead from the abortion law if you like. Everyone can see the need for provision in the law for abortion in extraordinary circumstances, but the law was not intended to be used for the purpose of social eugenics. I heard of one case where an unmarried pregnant female met some guy who became her boyfriend and he didn't want children, so the female had it aborted. True it was still within the legal 24 weeks, but this is social eugenics and I can't see that as a sound moral practice - even though I accept the replicating cells rationale. Something else is going on which is not right.

If euthanasia becomes a legal practice then much the same train of unforeseen consequences, and actually well-foreseen consequences, will for sure ensue.

Mr J B-J appears to have forgotten what I have said about the right to end one's life if suffering unbearably from terminal illness, so I welcome this opportunity to repeat it:

Unlike some other people who so arrogantly and unfeelingly wish to interfere with other people's private lives and pry into their most intimate, dying moments (by wishing to impose their own particular religious principles on everyone else) I have no such desire to force my own wishes on anyone.

I hope for a dignified end to my own life (I hope that will come naturally anyway - not too painful or lingering). And I hope - and so too do others who think like me - that if I'm in need, I'll find someone with understanding and compassion to help me on my final journey. (I shall be eighty next year, so this is something I increasingly think about.)

I don't live in Britain, so British law doesn't concern me. I thought Lord Carey's statement was interesting though (and there has been a similar statement from the head of the protestant church in this country too). For them, compassion seems to have triumphed over harsh religious inhumanity as a result of their personal confrontation with human suffering and misery.

I again stress that any law must certainly be so formulated that it cannot be abused. That is not easy, I admit, and there lies a problem.

Of course I understand and accept that some people, for whatever reason, do not wish to end their lives prematurely in such a distressing situation and are prepared to accept suffering and misery as part of life. Of course I don't object to that, how could I? On the contrary, I must admire such courage.

Thank you for your reply and accepting my point on the murder/kill commandment conundrum. Firstly (not that you implied or stated it) I am not a Christian, I am an atheist, so I do not feel tethered to 'sanctity of life', 'God's children' attitude, which you mentioned. In regards to whether capital punishment is murder or killing, I think there is a few distinctions to be made. Murder can be broadly characterized as an act of hate without any lawful process underpinning it. Any act of capital punishment would have a legal process underpinning it with the intention of justice being served, many people would be consulted in determining whether capital punishment was the appropriate course of action. Why the exclamation mark after 'her', it seems women should be subject to the same law as men ? I am afraid I do not have much sympathy with Ian Brady or Myra Hindley, if you were to see somebody murder a child I think you would have no hesitation in banishing them to the great gig in the sky. Once you commit a heinous acts, such as the afore mentioned people did, your life is no longer sacred. Life imprisonment makes the condemned a risk to fellow inmates and prison officers, there is also the minute possibility of escape.
I am opposed to abortion and I will try to address the points you made about it. The sly act of semantic sophistry you employed in calling a foetus 'not a person' is a little truculent I feel. No a foetus is not a 'person' capable of building relationships and communicating (which the word person implies) but I feel the only way of deciding what is a human being (the more appropriate term) and what is not a human being, is biologically. A child is in the womb at any stage of development is not capable of communication or valuing its own life. A foetus (human being in early development) will grow to be a child then an adolescent and so one if it is not interrupted by violence. Treating all innocent life as sacred seems to be a sensible and humane attitude to take. Leaving it to science and its ever changing theories seems fraught with danger, many acts could be carried out for science to suddenly discover the science was wrong. Saying life begins at conception is I feel sensible and humane absolute, to find another definition is fraught with ambiguity.

In regards to the Christian position on ones right to end their own life; this is not a subject I have paused for much thought over so I do not really feel qualified at this moment to forward an opinion, I'll go away and formulate one.

I accept your position on war, however, can you give any instances of a war which fits your definition of justifiable ?

".....no doubt you are also fully aware of what I wrote, Mr Bunker, and what I meant.
Which is, no doubt, why you ignored it and re-posted your original wording."

"But what I would like you to do, and you probably won't, for reasons that will be clear to everyone, is consider the arguments you made regarding murder, as it applies to your support of euthanasia:....."

Mikebarnes- You think I have a problem. We'll you are quite correct along with the rest of society that turns a blind eye to the politicians that pass laws allowing known murderous criminals to live amongst us.
The only victim that day was my neighbour. I wonder what she could say if she could talk from the grave?
As for thinking that I should have done something different,I am just so grateful that my family and I were away at the time!
Ian Minshall

The least likely view (yours) seems, to me, that those States involved in these dreadful blunders are seeking to turn public opinion away from capital punishment by an inept method of execution. I'm not al all convinced that making laughing stocks of themselves across America (and the watching world) is likely to convince many folk that they are anything other than inept bumpkins.

Mr Owen's theory that this is down to the heavy hand of the EU in stopping the flow of certain drugs (to a country awash with drugs!) is almost laughable, but, in my view, possibly slightly more likely than your theory.

My theory (or guess, I should say) is that it's a matter of politicians not wishing to change their existing policy and copy the State down the road.

The real reason that lethal injections have always been botched in the United States is because they are carried out by botchers. The medical profession, even in your otherwise unenlightened country, quite rightly forbids doctors or other qualified health professionals from participating directly in executions, for ethical reasons (although doubtless a few scoundrels occasionally circumvent this).

Incidentally, Peter Hitchens is quite wrong to think that lethal-injection executions are objectionable on the grounds that they resemble medical procedures; as the above paragraph should make clear, to the extent that no medically qualified personnel are involved with them, they resemble such procedures not at all, any more than a performance by someone who has hastily been taught a few chords resembles a recital by a concert pianist. Lethal-injection executions are wrong for precisely the same reason as all other methods of capital punishment.

Matthew Page - thank you for that polite and clearly argued comment. I take your point (I must, because I understand neither Hebrew or Greek, unfortunately). If - as I must assume - you are right, in future I shall try to remember to say "Thou shalt not murder" instead of "kill". (But I wish they'd change it in prayer books and bibles so there's no doubt about it.)

I take your other points seriously too, and here are my responses.

Accepted that it's "murder" not "kill", how does this apply to capital punishment. Is that killing or murder? The person killed is defenceless, helpless, no longer a danger to the public; he (or she!) is killed although it could easily be avoided. There are alternatives - imprisonment for life, for example, which affords protection to the public. But no, without need, he (or she) is deliberately, mercilessly 'killed' in cold blood. - That is why I'm against it, whether we call it 'murder' or not. - And even if life imprisonment is "worse" than capital punishment (which I honestly doubt), I must still follow my conscience.

My argument concerning Christianity also applies whatever we call it. I constantly hear of the 'sanctity of life', the life of God's children - given to them by God and taken away by God. Never do I hear that we humans can end lives without dire need. Indeed that is the argument I hear against abortion, so stringent that it applies to a two- or three-week old foetus, not yet a living person. That is often called "murder" by fervent Christians. But it is arguably less of a vile deed than killing a living person, and therefore less deservous of the term "murder".

The same applies, in a way, to the opposition from Christians to the right of anyone to end his or her own life, to avoid unbearable suffering and misery and a slow lingering death devoid of any dignity.

Then we have "war": Yes, much as I'd like to be a pacifist, I cannot in all honesty. I accept the right to self-defence, for persons and for nations. War as a last resort. Not a "just war" (an oxymoron, perhaps) but a 'justifiable' war. Such a war is only justified if it is a necessity for self defence - which the death penalty is not. That is the difference.

So, I hope you understand, I see no incompatibility in accepting military defence (as a last resort) and what i regard as needless killing of a fellow human being.

I've tried to explain my position. Please tell me if you see any contradiction in it. - Thanks again for your comment.

Posted by: Mr Bunker | 22 August 2014 at 02:07 PM"
"Mr Bonington-Jagworth - you got it wrong. So I'll repeat what I actually wrote for your edification:
1. It is not clear whether the Commandment forbids killing or murder. And whether capital punishment is not (state-sanctioned) murder is a question of definition.
2. Under capital punishment innocent people have been and probably still are being executed. Do you deny that?
3. How unlikely that is, is irrelevant. (Once is too often.)
4. Whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not is debatable.
You understand now, Mr B-J? No mention of euthanasia anywhere. Try to be a little more accurate next time!"

I'm fully aware of what you wrote, Mr Bunker, what you did, or did not mention, and what you meant.

And no doubt you are also fully aware of what I wrote, Mr Bunker, and what I meant.

Which is, no doubt, why you ignored it and re-posted your original wording.

But what I would like you to do, and you probably won't, for reasons that will be clear to everyone, is consider the arguments you made regarding murder, as it applies to your support of euthanasia:

Mr Bunker - you got it wrong. So I'll repeat what I actually wrote for your edification:

1. It is not clear whether the Commandment forbids killing or murder. And whether euthanesia is not (state-sanctioned) murder is a question of definition.

3. Under euthanasia innocent people have been and probably still are being executed. Do you deny that?

Goodness me, mike. If you haven't worked it out yet I'm not going to help you at this late stage. As to my treatment of those on this blog you are now starting to sound like my friend, John. Next thing you'll be rounding up a posse...

@ Jerry Owen .
It seems the old fella from Yarkshire thinks my last post was telling you off. That's his trouble .he read what he thinks folk write. Not what they do write .But then as sure as night follows day uses excuses usually blaming them for incorrect syntax. Being an ex international tycoon obviously has its down side.
Treating ones workers as serfs, then in retirement treating the free thinkers on this blog, in the same manner

@ Mr Thomas
As is clearly written .The USA buys a drug in Italy . The EU is anti capital punishment .Both factual. My reply was to inform Jerry why the USA does what they do. A far easier exercise, than trying to figure out why you even post on this blog at all.

@ Mr Bunker
There are two different Hebrew words (ratsakh, mut) and two Greek words (phoneuo, apokteino) for 'murder' and 'killing.' One means 'to put to death,' and the other means 'to murder.' The latter one is the one prohibited by the Ten Commandments, not the former. The commandment is in origin 'thou shall not murder' but has been wrongly translated down the year's, most notably in the King James bible. You presented the commandment as 'thou shall not kill' then you said you're unsure of what it is, was it just convenient to present it with certainty as 'thou shall not kill' because it suited your argument ? Furthermore, in your previous post you hyperbolically tried to show it as being axiomatically true that there is a contradiction between being a Christian and being pro capital punishment, it is far from being axiomatically so, do you now accept this, this was the main point of my post ? I shall point you to the instance the apostle Paul talks about the right of the state to take the lives of evildoers which you will find at (Romans 13:1-7).

I do not deny innocent people have been unjustly killed and probably still are, this of course is terrible and all appropriate action should be taken to avoid this. But it is a necessary price to accept for the greater good, as the innocent deaths in World War Two was, if these two things are completely different you better explain how.

You cannot brush off my point about war that easily, it would be disingenuous to deem all war as direct self defence, you are over simplifying and mixing two things together and pretending they're the same to your own end once again. If you must insist on calling all war self defence then why is capital punishment not defence against those whose wish to do others harm ? If you are not a pacifist then why not and which wars did you support ? I am pro capital punishment not for all murders but for the worst of the worst. You made clear in some of your other posts that you wish to condemn people to life imprisonment instead of capital punishment. Do you not think life imprisonment is more crueller; being left in claustrophobic solitude to go slowly mad ?

Blaming Italy and 'western liberals' in general for the lack of drugs that bring about a 'successful' execution, seems rather surprising, if not somewhat Machiavellian.

One would have thought that the normal 'get-up-and-go' system of enterprise that has always prevailed in America would have quickly found a new manufacturer or supplier (EU-free Switzerland clearly has the necessary drugs and normally responds to buyers quickly and efficiently) or they could adopt one of the other methods that prevail in those States that do not use lethal injection.

Personally, against your advice, I am rather inclined to blame those states involved in botched executions for not reacting to the situation you describe.

@ Ian Minshall
I'm sorry for your problem For it is you problem You wished on that day you had done something different . So your vies are more from a victim area. Not any less because of it.
@ Jerry Owen
Your post on the inablitiy of America not getting the drug it needs . Seems to me A poor excuse if America is making that excuse. America is awash with all sorts of lethal substances. What we have is America trying to appease those against death sentences. Thus the woolly argument . A 357 bullet is all that's needed .The Chinese use that form successfully .Even sending the bill to relatives .so I'm informed.
America has always used fancy execution methods, some quite gruesome. But today they wish to appear civilised .But of course they cannot . For to be civilised the culprits death should be quick and painful. Both the best, in a world utterly confused by it duplicitous ways.
AS PH says the EU against capital punishment .whilst doing all it can to promote WWIII.

Mr Bunker, This is why we should have the death penalty so if (heaven forbid) your daughter's life was taken, you could see justice being truly undertaken.
Instead we have the ridiculous system where the relatives of such people are beguiled into thinking they may have some influence over the judges decision in passing sentence. As we have recently seen.
In my world if some takes another's life then they lose their right to life and become the property of the state to be dispatched of humanely and quickly.
They then cannot commit the act again, relatives of the victim can grieve and move on and the state has a powerful deterrent for the worst crime of all.
Ian Minshall

The reason that many executions in America are being botched is because the states that have the death penalty rely on a three drug system. In 2011 the last drug company ( Hospira ) to make one of the three drugs moved to Italy and because Italy is in the EU the EU waged a campaign against the company to stop making the drug as the EU is against capital punishment.
America is being starved of effective drugs to remove those that need removing from society.
Don't blame the states in America for the botched deaths, as usual western liberals are the meddlesome culprits that do more harm than good in just about every aspect of life.

Brian Warner
I appreciate your reply, I understand what you are trying to tell me.
Of course as I've said this is all hypothetical. One more reason is because I know my husband would do it for me.
Because our lives would change irrevocably.
I know the people we are. We are good people.
What do you think we'd dwell on most, that a brutal killer who had taken one of our own was no more or of our loss every day.
Tell me that they would be in a cell, with only books, in isolation, on basic rations. Not able to socialise, an interminable life of the same daily routine. Tell me they will never be free and I might be satisfied.
Otherwise no, I would not.
Don't get me wrong, for if they were mentally ill then I would want them in a secure mental hospital, although I read today of escapes from them.
I think you misjudge how you would feel, let's pray we never find out whose right.
I keep reading of different crimes around my area,
I want to see some proper policemen on the beat. I want to see the return of park keepers.
To stop the low level drug dealers that target the young.
I want that presence on the ground where it all starts.
We have had money spent on new police stations, very nice. High tec.
Yet our estates are policed with drive by cars.
I want to go back to when we had proper beats, proper policemen.
I despair when I watch what has happened in Sheffield. Where it takes a curfew and a dispersal order to police an estate. So when it is taken away the youth without boundaries or respect, laugh at the police who have lost control.
I can't believe what I see sometimes and the stupidity of politicians.

Ian MInshall - Please don't misunderstand me. I have every sympathy with you. That was a truly evil and barbaric act. I know how I'd feel if someone murdered my daughter like that. I would be so consumed with grief and rage and feelings of revenge that I'd probably want to kill the murderer myself, mercilessly, with my own hands. - I might even do so given the chance. I cannot say.

But what I can say is that I know it would be wrong to do so. And so I sincerely hope I wouldn't.

Mr Bunker. I certainly do think the murderer that killed my neighbour deserves the death penalty and yes I would push the button, pull the lever or what ever method it took.
Just to help you with the question I posed; my neighbour was stabbed over 50 times in her own home and so severely she was almost decapitated, just 9 inches the other side of the wall from where iam writing this!
Ian Minshall

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.